Mormon-evangelical detente? Mouw, Zacharias to speak to LDS again

Deseret News ^ | Thursday, Oct. 31 2013 | Tad Walch

[restornu]

The chill seemed to begin to thaw for some in 2004 when Mouw introduced Ravi Zacharias at the LDS Church's Salt Lake Tabernacle. Mouw spoke for seven minutes and apologized for evangelicals who had "misrepresented the faith and belief of Latter-day Saints."

"Let me state it clearly," Mouw said. "We evangelicals have sinned against you."

Mouw didn't flinch despite criticism of the apology by other evangelicals and published a book last year titled "Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals." He practices “convicted civility,” which he says is different from what he calls the “ ‘anything-goes’ compromised relativism so popular in American religion.”

Zacharias followed Mouw to the Tabernacle pulpit and delivered the first lecture by an internationally renowned evangelical leader in the Tabernacle in 105 years.

The Deseret News first reported earlier this month that Zacharias is scheduled to return to the Tabernacle in January at the LDS Church's invitation. He also will speak at BYU as part of a "Faith, Family and Society" lecture series that brought both Moore's predecessor, Richard Land, and Assemblies of God general superintendent George Wood to BYU in September and included an October address by Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (Please see the Deseret News Q&As with Land, Wood and Mohler.)

Mohler is scheduled to return to BYU to speak at a nationally televised campus forum in February.

What is motivating the dialogue?

Mormons and evangelicals agree on issues like religious liberty, humanitarian aid and the importance of families.

Talking to Religion News Service writer Adelle M. Banks, the LDS Church's director of interfaith relations, John Taylor, said, “There’s a realization among faith groups generally that despite doctrinal differences — and we have doctrinal differences, there’s no question about that — we do have areas of commonality."

[caww]

<”my conversion came from the Holy Ghost.......I always felt the Spirit........I always felt the Spirit of the Lord when ever I read the Bible and I had also felt it very strong when reading the Book of Mormon it is the same.”>

How do you know it was God’s Spirit?.... Further Salvation is by and through Jesus Christ not by how we feel when we read the Bible or any other material.... Christians know and understand their conversion came from Jesus Christ, through and by His blood shed for them on Calvary. That He took ‘their’ sins upon himself... that they not be condemned with the world...for without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness...nor Salvation.

Interesting that throughout your conversion story there is no mention of Jesus Christ as Savior....nor repentance or forgiveness in your conversion........rather all about how feelings were the focus....which is not the basis of belief nor faith. So how do you know you are saved? ....additionally...how would you know if you weren’t? IS your faith resting on how you feel?

Regardless you still did not answer the question.......if Mormons are forbidden or discouraged from reading other material then Mormon material...why would you want to know the source?

[MHGinTN]

Ambiguity is the great friend of fraud. A prime example, which has been dealt with here at FR in the past extensively, are the artifacts discovered in Ohio at the sight of Indian mounds which have a certain geometric symmetry.

Your man Beck used ambiguity to fabricate an astonishing assertion regarding his preconceived beliefs from your ISM, and he was profoundly in error yet he is unable to abandon his erroneous assumptions even with strong evidence of what these actually are and their origins hundreds of years after where Beck asserted as their original time period.

How do I know this? Because I took the time to do the research and share the truth with him, only to have the truth rejected in his favoring the myth he was helping to promote. Your video is in a similar vane of rejecting facts in order to try and reinforce a myth.